No offense has put up more than 31 on the Pats so far this season or at all last season.

The Giants just did it to the Packers in a half.

Surprising given how much better the Packers' D has been than the Pats this year (statistically speaking), despite giving up almost 950 yards between week 4 and 5.

If ever there was an argument for statistics lying, this would be it. Not that the Pats are the '85 Bears on defense, but I'd take their stop unit over the Packers' seven days a week and twice on Sundays.

No offense has put up more than 31 on the Pats so far this season or at all last season.

The Giants just did it to the Packers in a half.

Surprising given how much better the Packers' D has been than the Pats this year (statistically speaking), despite giving up almost 950 yards between week 4 and 5.

If ever there was an argument for statistics lying, this would be it. Not that the Pats are the '85 Bears on defense, but I'd take their stop unit over the Packers' seven days a week and twice on Sundays.

Based on......? The Packers have given up 300+ yards passing just twice and 100+ yards rushing 5 times. The Pats have given up 300+ passing 5 times and 100+ rushing 7 times.

The Pats have given up 20+ points 8 times, the Packers have given up 20+ points 7 times (including tonight)

Packers allow 5.2 yards per play compared to the Pats' 5.9

Perhaps it's a bit closer than the statistics indicate, but I don't know why you'd be so definitively in the Pats' corner.

No offense has put up more than 31 on the Pats so far this season or at all last season.

The Giants just did it to the Packers in a half.

Surprising given how much better the Packers' D has been than the Pats this year (statistically speaking), despite giving up almost 950 yards between week 4 and 5.

If ever there was an argument for statistics lying, this would be it. Not that the Pats are the '85 Bears on defense, but I'd take their stop unit over the Packers' seven days a week and twice on Sundays.

Based on......? The Packers have given up 300+ yards passing just twice and 100+ yards rushing 5 times. The Pats have given up 300+ passing 5 times and 100+ rushing 7 times.

The Pats have given up 20+ points 8 times, the Packers have given up 20+ points 7 times (including tonight)

Packers allow 5.2 yards per play compared to the Pats' 5.9

Perhaps it's a bit closer than the statistics indicate, but I don't know why you'd be so definitively in the Pats' corner.

Because I've seen the Packers play defense this year, and they've been as lackluster as the Pats, but far less effective at creating turnovers. Now that they're missing several key starters on defense, I don't consider it much of a contest, and they're one of the very few teams I'd say that about.

Based on......? The Packers have given up 300+ yards passing just twice and 100+ yards rushing 5 times. The Pats have given up 300+ passing 5 times and 100+ rushing 7 times.

The Pats have given up 20+ points 8 times, the Packers have given up 20+ points 7 times (including tonight)

Packers allow 5.2 yards per play compared to the Pats' 5.9

Perhaps it's a bit closer than the statistics indicate, but I don't know why you'd be so definitively in the Pats' corner.

I don't think the Pats have a better defense because I'd take the Packers pass defense over ours. But I'd take the Pats defense against the run. Which doesn't seem that important these days unfortunately..._________________
Adopt-a-Patriot: Marcus Forston - Practice squad (0 tackles, 0 sacks)

Based on......? The Packers have given up 300+ yards passing just twice and 100+ yards rushing 5 times. The Pats have given up 300+ passing 5 times and 100+ rushing 7 times.

The Pats have given up 20+ points 8 times, the Packers have given up 20+ points 7 times (including tonight)

Packers allow 5.2 yards per play compared to the Pats' 5.9

Perhaps it's a bit closer than the statistics indicate, but I don't know why you'd be so definitively in the Pats' corner.

I don't think the Pats have a better defense because I'd take the Packers pass defense over ours. But I'd take the Pats defense against the run. Which doesn't seem that important these days
unfortunately...

I'd take the Packers' pass D over the Pats and the run D isn't very different (and IMO the Pats' run D is moderately overrated on this board).

The turnovers are a big point in New England's favor, but so many of them seem to be egregious and unforced mistakes (e.g. Fitzpatrick's INT to end the game 2 weeks ago or his INT right at Tavon Wilson in the 1st meeting) or made by the dregs of the league (Sanchez, Fitzpatrick). In a big game, I'd probably lean a little towards the better (IMO) pass D rather than the D which has capitalized on some awful teams' awful mistakes.

Based on......? The Packers have given up 300+ yards passing just twice and 100+ yards rushing 5 times. The Pats have given up 300+ passing 5 times and 100+ rushing 7 times.

The Pats have given up 20+ points 8 times, the Packers have given up 20+ points 7 times (including tonight)

Packers allow 5.2 yards per play compared to the Pats' 5.9

Perhaps it's a bit closer than the statistics indicate, but I don't know why you'd be so definitively in the Pats' corner.

I don't think the Pats have a better defense because I'd take the Packers pass defense over ours. But I'd take the Pats defense against the run. Which doesn't seem that important these days
unfortunately...

I'd take the Packers' pass D over the Pats and the run D isn't very different (and IMO the Pats' run D is moderately overrated on this board).

The turnovers are a big point in New England's favor, but so many of them seem to be egregious and unforced mistakes (e.g. Fitzpatrick's INT to end the game 2 weeks ago or his INT right at Tavon Wilson in the 1st meeting) or made by the dregs of the league (Sanchez, Fitzpatrick). In a big game, I'd probably lean a little towards the better (IMO) pass D rather than the D which has capitalized on some awful teams' awful mistakes.

I agree with your evaluation of the pass defense. As for the run defense being overrated...

1) They are 8th in the league in YPA allowed (despite being in nickel for north of 60% of their snaps for the season).

2) On all of the 4th and 3 or less runs they have faced they have stopped the opposition, and are the only team that is both perfect and has given up a negative net yards in those situations. They are also third in the league at stopping conversions on 3rd/4th and 3 or less.

They might give up runs here and there while trying to compensate for their ridiculously bad pass defense. But in a "the whole world knows you're running the ball" scenario, I'd take them over the Packers - and almost every other team in the league._________________
Adopt-a-Patriot: Marcus Forston - Practice squad (0 tackles, 0 sacks)

You don't want to watch a game with bad calls? Don't watch sports. That simple. I don't see any reason to complain about how teams get "gifted" wins. There is never going to be a season that goes by that doesn't have controversial or close-call rulings which significantly impact the standings.

True enough. Usually though, the breaks don't line up for a single team like they have this season. First week three with the Ravens, and now this game. I think that's what's driving all the posters here off the wall.

I think what's driving posters off the wall is that it's the Ravens. If it were the Redskins, nobody would care.

I can understand being frustrated (as a Pats, Chargers or whatever fan) at the apparently horrible spot.

What I do not understand is the outrage that the Ravens are somehow league darlings who get the benefit of every blown call and bad decision.

Something tells me that if one was to go back through every NFL game that's been played this year, a lot of teams would have their records altered if everything was ruled 100% correctly and accurately. That's not the world we live in though, and it never has and never will be. There's a lot of fuzziness and gray area in sports, especially on close calls.

Let's also not forget that this bad call kept the Ravens alive, but it did not win them the game.

There shouldn't be in situations when a play is able to be reviewed with slow motion replay....

I think the reason people are speaking so loudly about it is because it was reviewed and still called wrong.